Skip to main content
Log in

Fusionsbildgebung in der Urologie

Die Kombination von MRT und TRUS zur Detektion des Prostatakarzinoms

Fusion imaging in urology

Combination of MRI and TRUS for detection of prostate cancer

Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Derzeit stellt die multiparametrische Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) die diagnostisch genaueste Methode zur Darstellung eines Prostatakarzinoms dar. Der Goldstandard zur Prostatabiopsie ist aufgrund der einfachen Anwendung die systematische Biopsie mit dem transrektalen Ultraschall (TRUS). Durch die Kombination können die Vorteile beider Methoden genutzt werden. Mittlerweile befinden sich mehrere Bildgebungssysteme zur fusionsbildgestützten Biopsie in der Erprobung. Erste Daten zeigen höhere Karzinomdetektionsraten als bei der systematischen TRUS-Biopsie. Allerdings stellen die Verformung der Prostata und die intrakorporale Beweglichkeit Herausforderungen dar, die noch nicht abschließend gelöst sind. Der vorliegende Artikel gibt eine Übersicht über den aktuellen Stand der MRT-gestützten Biopsieverfahren und beleuchtet die aktuelle Datenlage.

Abstract

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) represents the most accurate imaging modality for prostate cancer imaging to date. Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is easily applied and therefore remains the gold standard for systematic prostate biopsies. However, the advantages of both modalities can be combined by image fusion. Currently, several image fusion devices are being implemented into clinical routine. First data show an increased detection rate of prostate cancer compared to systematic TRUS biopsies. At present prostatic deformation and intracorporeal movement represent technical challenges yet to be overcome. The present article gives an overview about the status of MRI-based biopsy techniques and highlights the current studies on the topic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Anastasiadis AG, Lichy MP, Nagele U et al (2006) MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur Urol 50:738–748

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Beyersdorff D, Taupitz M, Winkelmann B et al (2002) Patients with a history of elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and negative transrectal US-guided quadrant or sextant biopsy results: value of MR imaging. Radiology 224:701–706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Borgermann C, Loertzer H, Hammerer P et al (2010) Problems, objective, and substance of early detection of prostate cancer. Urologe A 49:181–189

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Colleselli D, Schilling D, Lichy MP et al (2010) Topographical sensitivity and specificity of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection. Urol Int 84:388–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW et al (2007) Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 178:14–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Engelhard K, Hollenbach HP, Kiefer B et al (2006) Prostate biopsy in the supine position in a standard 1.5-T scanner under real time MR-imaging control using a MR-compatible endorectal biopsy device. Eur Radiol 16:1237–1243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Eskew La, Bare Rl, Mccullough Dl (1997) Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 157:199–202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hadaschik BA, Kuru TH, Tulea C et al (2011) A novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating pre-interventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasound fusion. J Urol 186:2214–2220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P et al (2011) Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 108:171–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 183:520–527

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59:61–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hodge KK, Mcneal JE, Terris MK et al (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142:71–75

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hu Y, Carter TJ, Ahmed HU et al (2011) Modelling prostate motion for data fusion during image-guided interventions. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 30:1887–1900

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kuru TH, Roethke M, Popeneciu V et al (2012) Phantom study of a novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating preinterventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasonography fusion. J Endourol 26:807–813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kuru TH, Tulea C, Simpfendorfer T et al (2012) MRI navigated stereotactic prostate biopsy: fusion of MRI and real-time transrectal ultrasound images for perineal prostate biopsies. Urologe A 51:50–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Labanaris AP, Engelhard K, Zugor V et al (2010) Prostate cancer detection using an extended prostate biopsy schema in combination with additional targeted cores from suspicious images in conventional and functional endorectal magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 13:65–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee SH, Chung MS, Kim JH et al (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in men with previously negative prostate biopsy results. J Endourol 26:787–791

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Marks L, Young S, Natarajan S (2013) MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol 23:43–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Natarajan S, Marks LS, Margolis DJ et al (2011) Clinical application of a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system. Urol Oncol 29:334–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nix JW, Turkbey B, Hoang A et al (2012) Very distal apical prostate tumours: identification on multiparametric MRI at 3 Tesla. BJU Int (Epub ahead of print), doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11503.x

  22. Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR et al (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 186:1281–1285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Presti JC Jr, Chang JJ, Bhargava V et al (2000) The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol 163:163–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Puech P, Potiron E, Lemaitre L et al (2009) Dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 74:1094–1099

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Reynier C, Troccaz J, Fourneret P et al (2004) MRI/TRUS data fusion for prostate brachytherapy. Preliminary results. Med Phys 31:1568–1575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M et al (2012) MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol 30:213–218

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Roethke MC, Lichy MP, Jurgschat L et al (2011) Tumorsize dependent detection rate of endorectal MRI of prostate cancer–a histopathologic correlation with whole-mount sections in 70 patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 79:189–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Ciccariello M et al (2010) Value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for detecting prostate cancer foci in men with prior negative biopsy. Clin Cancer Res 16:1875–1883

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Singh AK, Kruecker J, Xu S et al (2008) Initial clinical experience with real-time transrectal ultrasonography-magnetic resonance imaging fusion-guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int 101:841–845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Siu W, Dunn RL, Shah RB et al (2005) Use of extended pattern technique for initial prostate biopsy. J Urol 174:505–509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW et al (2010) Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 13:71–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y et al (2011) Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 258:488–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ukimura O, Hirahara N, Fujihara A et al (2010) Technique for a hybrid system of real-time transrectal ultrasound with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in the guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Int J Urol 17:890–893

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK et al (2012) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol 188:2152–2157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Xu S, Kruecker J, Turkbey B et al (2008) Real-time MRI-TRUS fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsies. Comput Aided Surg 13:255–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Yerram NK, Volkin D, Turkbey B et al (2012) Low suspicion lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict for the absence of high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int, doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11646.x

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Keine Angaben

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Schilling.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schilling, D., Kurosch, M., Mager, R. et al. Fusionsbildgebung in der Urologie. Urologe 52, 481–489 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-012-3096-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-012-3096-y

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation